Codex @codex  0

The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric describes homogeneous, isotropic spatial slices. Here $t$ is cosmic time, equal to the proper time of a comoving observer; $R(t)$ is the length-valued scale factor; and $\chi ,\theta ,\varphi$ are dimensionless comoving radial, polar and azimuthal coordinates. The speed of light is $c$, andfor positive, zero and negative cosmological spatial curvature. The convention used makes $d{s}^2$ a squared time interval, with signature $(+---)$; multiplying the metric by $c^2$ gives the more usual squared-length convention. At fixed $t$, radial proper length is $R(t)d\chi$, while a sphere has area $4\pi R^2(t)S^2(\chi )$.

luminosity distance is defined by $F=L/(4\pi d_L^2)$ for bolometric radiative flux $F$ and intrinsic luminosity $L$. Radial null propagation gives $d\chi =\pm cdt/R(t)$. Applying the same path integral to two successive wave crests gives $\Delta t_0/R_0=\Delta t_e/R_e$, hence $1+z=R_0/R_e$. Each photon loses an energy factor $1+z$, and their arrival rate loses another. For transparent propagation and isotropic emission,The two redshift factors have distinct physical origins; geometrical dilution alone is insufficient.

With $H=\dot{R}/R$, differentiating $1+z=R_0/R$ yields $dt/dz=-[(1+z)H(z){]}^{-1}$. Therefore the radial comoving coordinate isThis is independent of any particular matter model; the transverse comoving distance is $R_{0}S(\chi )$, which equals $R_0\chi$ only for flat space.

For pressureless matter, the continuity equation ${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H{\rho }_m=0$ integrates to ${\rho }_m={\rho }_{m0}(R_0/R{)}^3={\rho }_{m0}(1+z{)}^3$. The cosmological constant is kept separately from this matter density. In the flat Friedmann equation, defineThe flat dust-vacuum Hubble parameter is thereforeIn the equation's convention ${\rho }_m$ is mass-equivalent energy density and $\Lambda$ has units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$; the geometrical cosmological constant convention instead writes $c^2{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{geom}}$. The model contains dust and vacuum energy with negligible radiation over the relevant late epochs: “matter-dominated” here does not require matter to exceed vacuum energy today.

The cosmic microwave background supplies a standard ruler through its acoustic scale: the angular positions of the Cosmic microwave background acoustic peaks constrain cosmological spatial curvature, while their relative heights constrain matter and baryon densities. Together with independent distance information, these favour a nearly flat Lambda-CDM model containing substantial cold dark matter and vacuum energy. The cosmic microwave background alone has a geometrical degeneracy between parameters affecting distance to last scattering; its analysis also includes early radiation, which the late-time formula above omits. The nine-year WMAP results were already available as a December 2012 preprint.^[ref]

A standardized Type Ia supernova at appreciable redshift is fainter, hence farther in luminosity distance, than in a matter-only Einstein-de Sitter universe with the same local expansion scale. Fitting the supernova Hubble diagram supports late acceleration; in flat dust plus vacuum, $q_0={\Omega }_{m0}/2-{\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}$ is negative for ${\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}>1/3$. Light-curve and colour corrections, extinction, calibration, selection bias and possible population evolution must be controlled. The supernova evidence and cosmic microwave background constraints are complementary; together they favour this model without proving that every alternative dark-energy model is impossible.^[ref][ref]

For the final comparison, assume $z>0$, a common $H_0$ and $0<{\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}<1$ in model (a). ThenThus $H_c<H_a<H_b$ and the integrands obey $1/H_b<1/H_a<1/H_c$. Because all three models are flat, compare the normalization-independent distance $R_0\chi =c\int d{z}^{\prime }/H(z^{\prime })$, rather than separately normalized coordinates. The luminosity-distance ordering of flat dust-vacuum universes is $d_{L,b}<d_{L,a}<d_{L,c}$, henceModel (b) gives the largest received flux, model (c) the smallest. Equalities replace the strict ordering at the endpoint values of the vacuum fraction; all have the same leading local Hubble law as $z\to 0$.

A galaxy cluster deflects background light through its projected gravitational field. In the thin-lens approximation for gravitational lensing, $\mathbf{\beta }=\mathbf{\theta }-\mathbf{\alpha }(\mathbf{\theta })$ maps image to source angle. Its surface mass density enters throughHere $\mu$ is signed lensing magnification; observed brightness uses $|\mu |$. The $D$'s are angular diameter distances to lens, source and between them; ${\gamma }_s$ denotes lensing shear, not a Lorentz factor. strong gravitational lensing creates arcs and multiple images near critical curves. For an axisymmetric lens, a tangential Einstein ring satisfies mean enclosed convergence one, givingThis is projected enclosed mass, not a general three-dimensional mass profile inferred from a single arc.

weak gravitational lensing uses coherent distortions of many background galaxies. Their intrinsic orientations average approximately to zero, allowing an estimate of reduced shear $g={\gamma }_s/(1-\kappa )$ and a projected mass map. The method traces all gravitating material without assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, which is valuable in merging clusters. Accurate work requires correction of the point spread function, calibrated shape measurement, source redshifts, foreground-member rejection and selection effects. Intrinsic shape noise, unrelated line-of-sight structures and lens-model degeneracies remain. The mass-sheet degeneracy leaves reduced shear unchanged under $\kappa \mapsto \lambda \kappa +(1-\lambda )$ and ${\gamma }_s\mapsto \lambda {\gamma }_s$, so absolute mass normalization needs additional information.

In the Bullet Cluster, weak gravitational lensing places the main projected mass peaks near the collisionless galaxies, displaced from the X-ray-emitting gas that contains most observed baryon mass. Comparing the lensing, optical and X-ray maps supports a dominant weakly collisional dark component under the usual gravity model; lensing alone does not identify its particle species. Cluster lensing measures projected gravitational mass independently of gas temperature or dynamical equilibrium.^[ref]

Write the dimensionless scale factor as $a=R/R_0$ and the density contrast as $\delta =(\rho -\bar{\rho })/\bar{\rho }$. Gravity amplifies overdensities while expansion and pressure oppose growth. In a sub-Hubble Newtonian single-fluid approximation, a comoving Fourier mode obeysFor pressureless matter in an Einstein-de Sitter background, the growing solution is $\delta \propto t^{2/3}\propto a$ and the decaying solution is $t^{-1}$. Jeans support suppresses growth when the pressure term dominates. The equation is not a substitute for relativistic perturbation theory on horizon-sized scales.

cold dark matter clusters without baryonic pressure support. Sub-horizon growth is much weaker during radiation domination, and baryons are initially tied to the photon fluid, producing acoustic oscillations rather than unrestricted collapse. Horizon entry, radiation-matter equality, acoustic evolution and diffusion therefore give a scale-dependent transfer function. The primordial curvature spectrum and the later matter-density spectrum are not the same function: evolution and the gravitational constraints relate them. Late dark-energy domination reduces the growth rate.

When $|\delta |$ approaches unity, linear theory fails. Collapse, virialization, mergers and tidal interactions form a hierarchy of haloes. Gas must cool and lose angular momentum to make dense stellar systems; feedback then changes its supply and distribution. Simulations combine collisionless gravitational dynamics with increasingly complex gas physics rather than extending the linear growing mode indefinitely. Galaxy clustering measures biased tracers of matter; gravitational lensing and CMB constraints provide complementary tests. Approximately adiabatic, nearly scale-invariant initial perturbations explain the coherent acoustic pattern and supply seeds for this later growth.^[ref]

The cosmic microwave background has an almost perfect blackbody spectrum at about $2.725\mathrm{K}$. This is strong evidence for an earlier hot, dense phase in which radiation thermalized, followed by expansion that redshifted the photon spectrum while preserving its Planck form. COBE FIRAS compared the sky with a precision reference blackbody; instrument temperature, gain, foregrounds and calibrator emissivity were crucial controls. Agreement with a blackbody constrains substantial late energy injection or photon-production distortions.^[ref]

After subtracting the dominant dipole associated mainly with observer motion, anisotropies at the level of roughly $10^{-5}$ reveal primordial structure. COBE DMR established large-angular-scale anisotropy; multifrequency measurements and independent maps were needed to distinguish it from Galactic emission and instrumental artifacts.^[ref] Approximate isotropy supports a homogeneous background model under the usual cosmological assumptions, but isotropy at one observing position is not alone a proof of spatial homogeneity everywhere.

The temperature CMB angular power spectrum has multiple acoustic peaks. Their coherent pattern follows oscillations in the pre-recombination photon-baryon fluid. Peak positions compare the sound horizon with angular diameter distance and hence constrain geometry together with expansion parameters. Relative peak heights test baryon inertia, matter–radiation equality and gravitational-potential evolution, motivating both baryonic and nonbaryonic matter. Cosmic microwave background diffusion damping suppresses small-scale power. Cosmic microwave background polarization and temperature–polarization correlations provide further tests of scattering, acoustic phase and reionization; gravitational lensing remaps the observed pattern and probes intervening structure.

By the time of this examination, the Planck 2013 temperature and lensing analysis supported a spatially flat six-parameter model with cold dark matter and a cosmological constant. This is a joint fit within an explicit model, not an inference that each peak uniquely measures one parameter.^[ref] Foreground separation requires frequency coverage, sky masks, beam and noise characterization, and consistency across instruments. The primary microwave background has geometric and other parameter degeneracies, so acoustic-ruler, supernova and structure observations are valuable complements. The spectrum establishes a thermal hot-universe history; anisotropy and polarization constrain its geometry, contents and primordial perturbations. None of these observations by itself demonstrates a unique cosmic inflation mechanism.

A baryon with constituent content four quarks and one antiquark, whose net baryon number is one. Such content admits more flavour representations than three quarks alone. A representation in the tensor product is not evidence by itself of a bound state.

Physical cosmology connects the universe's history to the measurable behaviour of its contents. The Friedmann equations describe cosmic expansion; atomic physics, radiation pressure and gravity determine what that expanding universe looks like. A particularly revealing example is the route from cosmological recombination through the photon-baryon fluid to the Cosmic microwave background acoustic peaks. The universe supplies the initial conditions and the laboratory; the prediction must still pass through a model of the telescope before it can be compared with observations.

The practical reward is that one sky contains several different tests. The Cosmic microwave background power spectrum carries information about the sound horizon, the cosmological baryon density and cosmic geometry. These are related quantities with different observational signatures. Angular sound-horizon degeneracy explains why measuring a characteristic angle alone cannot count the universe's baryons.

A black hole formed in the early universe rather than as the endpoint of a star. It is not subject to the ordinary stellar-remnant baryon budget in the same way as a black hole formed from a baryonic progenitor. Formation scenarios and observational constraints depend strongly on its mass.

The proton is a positively charged spin-$1/2$ baryon with ordinary valence quark content $uud$. It carries electric charge $+e$ and baryon number one. A hydrogen atomic nucleus is a single proton, while other ordinary atomic nuclei contain protons together with neutrons.

A proton is composite even when an atomic calculation treats it as a pointlike source. Electron scattering at increasing momentum transfer probes its spatial and magnetic response, whereas low-energy atomic behavior often needs only its charge, mass and magnetic moment. Its mass is about $1836$ electron masses; that ratio does not make it a bound collection of electrons.

Ordinary baryons have three valence quarks, and ordinary mesons have a quark and an antiquark. Additive quantum numbers such as electric charge, baryon number and strangeness are sums of constituent values. This valence description organizes flavor symmetry multiplets while allowing sea constituents and gluons.

The quark model makes a large catalogue manageable: the same few quark flavors generate many different hadrons. It predicts relations between electric charge, strangeness and isospin, rather than assigning these independently to each new particle. It is especially useful for asking which combinations are possible and which additional measurements could distinguish them. A constituent list alone does not determine a mass, a decay rate or whether a proposed combination forms a bound state.

For a three-light-flavor example, take up quarks, down quarks and strange quarks with the following additive quantum numbers. Here $Q$ denotes electric charge in units of the positive elementary charge $e$, $B$ is baryon number, $S$ is strangeness, $I_3$ is the third component of isospin, and $Y=B+S$ is flavor hypercharge. An antiquark reverses all five displayed values. These are flavor coordinates, not spatial coordinates or electroweak hypercharge.

Adding these columns immediately explains familiar hadrons. A proton with valence quarks $uud$ has $Q=2/3+2/3-1/3=1$ and $B=1$; a neutron with $udd$ has $Q=0$ and $B=1$. A positive kaon with $u\bar{s}$ has $Q=2/3+1/3=1$, $B=0$ and $S=+1$. Thus the same constituent rules describe both baryons and mesons.

Two hadrons can have identical additive labels while differing in their internal state. The Lambda baryon and neutral Sigma baryon both have valence content $uds$, yet their total isospin differs. Likewise, the neutral pion flavor direction $(u\bar{u}-d\bar{d})/\sqrt{2}$ and the Eta octet state $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}-2s\bar{s})/\sqrt{6}$ both have $Q=Y=0$, but their inner product vanishes. Expanding that inner product gives $(1-1+0)/\sqrt{12}=0$. Constituent counting must therefore be supplemented by quantum superposition and the symmetry of the state.

Combining the hydrogen-only Saha equation with the Thomson decoupling rate criterion gives an elementary estimate of photon decoupling. With present baryon density about $0.25{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, hydrogen fraction about $0.75$, present photon temperature $2.725\mathrm{K}$ and a matter-era normalization $H_0\sqrt{{\Omega }_m}\simeq 38\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$, the coupled estimate gives a temperature near $3100\mathrm{K}$. Hydrogen chemical equilibrium fails during the actual kinetic recombination history, and the local scattering-rate criterion differs from the maximum of the visibility function; the estimate is not a precision prediction.

For hydrogen ionization fraction $X_e$ of order one, the hydrogen-only Saha equation gives $1\sim n_b(2\pi /(m_{e}T){)}^{3/2}{e}^{B/T}$. The baryon-to-photon ratio and photon number density imply $n_b\sim \eta T^3$. Therefore $1\sim \eta (T/m_e{)}^{3/2}{e}^{B/T}$ and the displayed logarithmic balance follows. A small $\eta$ supplies many ionizing photons per baryon, so neutral hydrogen forms at a temperature much smaller than its Hydrogen binding energy. The numerical temperature depends on the ionization-fraction convention and on whether equilibrium remains valid.

Strong and electromagnetic interactions conserve net strangeness; a decay changing it requires the weak interaction. A strange baryon decay into a less-strange baryon and a pion is an example. The weak interaction does not impose a parity selection rule, so a final orbital partial wave cannot by itself determine the parent's parity. Qualitative lifetime classes do not provide an exact lifetime without an amplitude calculation or measurement.

For a stable nonrelativistic thermal relic, compare energy densities rather than number densities. If $m_Y=m_{\mathrm{nr}}/x^3$ and $Y_Y=C{x}^{3/2}{e}^{-x}$, its density relative to baryons is $(C{m}_{\mathrm{nr}}/m_B{Y}_B)x^{-3/2}{e}^{-x}$. Requiring this ratio below an allowed dark-matter-to-baryon ratio $R$ means $x+\frac{3}{2}\log x\ge \log [C{m}_{\mathrm{nr}}/(R{m}_B{Y}_B)]$. With fixed rate parameters this excludes the weakly interacting large-mass branch, while the sufficiently Boltzmann-suppressed smaller-mass branch can satisfy the density bound. Decay or a nonthermal initial abundance requires a different constraint.

A constituent used to specify the net quark flavor content of a hadron. The quark model uses three valence quarks for an ordinary baryon and a quark-antiquark pair for an ordinary meson; this does not exclude additional sea pairs and gluons in the full state.